James Citta has sued the Seaside Park, NJ, Police Department claiming harassment.

Citta claims he was told he would never be promoted because of his weight. He underwent gastric bypass surgery in 2001 to lose weight, but he claims the harassment continued.

He also says he was retaliated against for issuing parking tickets to firefighters and lifeguards and that a doctored photo showing him in a Nazi uniform was distributed at a Borough Council meeting.

Citta went on disability leave in spring 2007. He was granted permanent disability effective Jan. 1, 2008. Press accounts haven’t stated the reason for the disability coverage.

Given Citta’s weight, his attempt to address the problem, the claims about the doctored photos and disability coverage, this case is already complicated.

But wait, there’s more.

Citta was named a defendant in many of the 14 excessive force lawsuits filed against the Seaside Park Police Department between 2005 and 2007. The borough’s insurance carrier has settled 12 of those lawsuits for more than $2.7 million according to the Asbury Park Press.

Citta was use-of-force training officer for the department. He was in charge of instructing police to follow state guidelines on how to use force to subdue subjects and ensuring excessive force wasn’t used.

So, when you have a sticky HR situation, just remember this case and be glad you don’t have to be one of those who try to untangle it.

Kevin McNeil has sued his former employer, Concrete Supply of Iowa. Besides claiming he was fired for pointing out the smoking violation, McNeil also says he suffered from racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation by his former employer.

The lawsuit claims that, 15 days after the state’s no-smoking law took effect, he confronted a co-worker smoking in the company break room. McNeil claims he told the co-worker smoking in the room was illegal and asked him to smoke outside. Then McNeil filed a complaint with the state health department, according to the Chicago Tribune.

The lawsuit claims the co-worker who was accused of smoking in the break room and a witness were interviewed. McNeil was fired three days later for allegedly “promoting violence in the workplace.”

McNeil also claims he was subjected to racial slurs and that the company did nothing after he complained several times. He cites one incident in which an employee — the same one accused of smoking in the break room — brought in a homemade toy monkey with a noose around its neck, and that he was told he should “get over it.”

The company denies all the charges.

McNeil’s attorney calls this an important public policy case that reminds employers that an employee who notes a co-worker’s illegal behavior shouldn’t be fired.

Imagine this: You provide an employee with a computer for work purposes and have a policy against using it for personal means. The employee uses it to harass someone, and now you’re facing a lawsuit.

We’re not making this up — here’s what happened in a recent case: 

Thomas Kobinsky and David and Patricia Sigler were neighbors. One day, David yelled at Kobinsky for allowing his child to urinate in the Siglers’ yard.

After the incident, someone anonymously placed ads for a business allegedly run by the Siglers that they didn’t own. Someone also signed up the Siglers for various subscriptions.

Police traced the source of the harassment to a computer at CUNA Mutual Insurance and found mailings and products in Kobinsky’s garbage can at work that had been ordered for the Siglers.

The Siglers sued CUNA, alleging negligent supervision and training. They argued that CUNA had a duty to prevent its employees from using company computers to harass others.

CUNA claimed the negligence argument lacked merit.

Lawsuit thrown out

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed with CUNA and threw out the Siglers’ lawsuit.

The judge concluded that the Siglers didn’t show it was foreseeable that CUNA’s employees were likely to use company computers and access to the Internet to cause harm, specifically in this case to harass someone.

The court also said that even if CUNA had been negligent, the injury was too remote from the negligence. CUNA had no relationship with the Siglers.

Another interesting note about this case: The Siglers tried to use CUNA’s strict computer rules for employees against the company. They argued that because CUNA disciplined 14 of its employees in 2003 for Internet Technology related offenses, CUNA was aware of a foreseeable risk due to employee misuse of computers. The court didn’t buy that argument.

In effect, CUNA didn’t owe a duty to people with whom it didn’t have a connection to protect them from harassment from an employee using a company computer.

This case turns out well for companies: The court threw out the lawsuit.

But what if their employee had harassed another CUNA worker? Is it time for companies to update their policies to reflect that harassment can take place via computer? Let us know what you think. You can tell us your thoughts via the Comments Box below.

Sigler v. Kobinsky, Wisconsin Court of Appeals District IV, No. 2008AP29, 11/6/08.

Food is something you can use to get participants interested in HR training subjects. But this is just wrong.